The lead counsel of former President Rodrigo Duterte, Nicholas Kaufman, had just tasted the local brand of destructive politics, where the game involves the manipulation of perception.

The dispute over the Duterte defense team’s alleged attempt to restrict the identification documents the victims may present reflected the legal strategy of those who seek the former President’s conviction.

In a 17 April ruling, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I clarified the guidelines on the identification of the alleged drug war victims.

Kaufman refuted the claims by lawyers Joel Butuyan and Kristina Conti, representing the accusers of Duterte, regarding alleged attempts to restrict the victim identification process. Conti is a nominee of the left-wing party-list Bayan Muna, while Butuyan is the head of CenterLaw, a legal rights group.

The disagreement between Kaufman and the rights lawyers hinges on the nature of the defense’s submission to the ICC’s Victims Participation and Reparations Sector (VPRS).

Kaufman said there was no adverse ICC ruling since his team merely provided “observations” aligned with the Social Security System’s ID verification standards, which was not a request to limit identification documents.

Thus, Butuyan and Conti were accused of misrepresenting the defense observations as a rejected proposal, labeling their claims a “big lie.” They issued press statements labeling the ICC action as a rejection of the defense’s attempt to impose “restrictive ID requirements.”

Reports of the ICC rejecting such a proposal are false, as Kaufman stated, “Well, this whole thing about the judges rejecting my proposal, that never happened.”

The “observations” to the ICC’s Victims Participation and Reparations Sector were intended to provide input on the victim identification process, not to impose restrictions.

The Chamber’s 20-page ruling, which affirmed a broad range of acceptable IDs such as birth certificates, barangay certificates, and driver’s licenses, was not an explicit rejection of a defense “request” but endorses the Registry’s inclusive approach.

This suggests that Butuyan and Conti may have overstated the defense’s actions, potentially to amplify their advocacy for victims’ rights.

The political sparks are unavoidable considering that the Philippine elections are near, and Conti is conflicted as a group member seeking a partylist slot in the House of Representatives.

The ICC’s ruling to accept diverse identification documents was meant to ease the participation of victims’ families and witnesses from marginalized communities who lack national IDs and passports.

By rejecting stricter standards, the court aimed to ensure broader participation, crucial for establishing the scale and systematic nature of the alleged crimes.

Kaufman’s team, however, wanted an assurance against false witnesses, saying his observations were rooted in bureaucratic norms to prevent fraud.

For the anti-Duterte forces, truth becomes secondary to political agendas. The ICC’s task is to navigate the polarized environment and maintain impartiality, as the generated noise is meant to stoke sentiment against Duterte.

The defense’s broader strategy would challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction over Duterte, arguing that the Philippines’ 2019 withdrawal from the Rome Statute limits the court’s authority.

The ID dispute can be seen as the defense testing the court’s procedural boundaries while preparing for more substantive motions.

In the period approaching the 23 September confirmation of charges hearing, more such clashes between the defense and the team of lawyers for the alleged families of victims of the war on drugs are expected, with the rights lawyers targeting public sympathy amid the deluge of support for Duterte.

Expect an extension of the type of political spins that many Filipinos are used to, this time on the global stage.